Blast triglycerides

15. May 2009 William Davis (0)
The conventional answers to high triglycerides levels are generally: low-fat diet, a fibrate drug (Tricor, Lopid), a statin drug, and--most recently--prescription fish oil.

This is the regimen to take if you want the drug industry to get even richer and more powerful than they already are. After all, what CEO of a pharmaceutical company can stand to have his salary and benefits slashed to below $200 million this year? It's outrageous!

If you really want to blast the heck out of your triglycerides and achieve numbers like 50 mg/dl, then the regimen to consider consists of:

--Elimination of sugars, wheat, and cornstarch
--Fish oil--Sam's Club would do fine at $8 for 350 capsules, or the high-potency at $14.99 for 180 capsules (at 680 mg EPA +DHA, nearly the same potency as prescription Lovaza at 842 mg)
--Vitamin D supplementation sufficient to achieve normal blood levels (60-70 ng/ml)

Those three strategies alone can reduce triglycerides far more than any drug combination. In fact, it is rare for someone with triglycerides as high as 900 mg/dl to not reduce them to the <100 mg/dl range.

Cheerios: Prescription required?

13. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Followers of The Heart Scan Blog know my feelings about Cheerios:


Can you say "sugar"?

Cheerios and heart health


There's an interesting tussle going on between the makers of Cheerios, General Mills, and the FDA.

The FDA says that the Cheerios' package claims of:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"
• "Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is ... clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol."

constitute a medical claim, i.e., trying to promote Cheerios as a drug.

I'm glad that the FDA has come down on General Mills. But I find this entire episode laughable: The debate is over the purported health benefits of what I would regard as pure junk food, no better in my view than claiming that a cupcake has health benefits, or a carton of ice cream.

In my experience, Cheerios does not 1) reduce risk for heart disease, nor 2) reduce cholesterol.

It does, however, cause blood sugar to skyrocket and increase the small type of LDL--you know, the type that causes heart disease.

"Placebos are frequently of value"

12. May 2009 William Davis (1)
The treatment of angina pectoris, generally speaking, is unsatisfactory.

Any procedure that relieves mental tension is valuable. Since patients suffer particularly during the winter, I encourage winter vacations in a southern climate.

I insist that obese patients lose weight, and have found small doses of benzedrine, 10 to 20 mg. daily, helpful in curbing the appetite.

I generally forbid smoking. This is a particularly disturbing task for many patients to carry out. In such cases, I suggest that 3 or 4 cigarettes be smoked daily, knowing full well that regardless of what I say or recommend, the patients is going to continue to smoke.

Innumerable drugs, most of which are of questionable value, have been used to prevent attacks of angina pectoris. In fact, placebos are frequently of value.

Testosterone--The male sex hormone has been effective in my experience. Whether it acts as a vasodilator or merely by promoting a sense of well-being is not known.

Alcohol--Alcohol (whiskey, brandy, rum) has been used for many years in the treatment of angina pectoris. I have prescribed it in moderate quantity--an ounce several times a day--and while I have not made alcoholics of any of my patients, I also have not cured any of them with it. Preparations, such as creme de menthe, are of value in relieving "gas" of which so many patients complain.


From Heart Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Emanuel Goldberger, MD
1951

Iodine is not salt

12. May 2009 William Davis (3)
I've noticed a point of confusion recently, something I hadn't noticed in my patients before: Because of the public health advice from the FDA, American Heart Association, and Surgeon General's office to reduce sodium/salt intake, people have thought this meant reducing iodine, too.

I believe that people have drawn an equation in their minds:


Sodium = iodine


Of course, they are two entirely unrelated things.

Recall that the only reason iodine is added to many (not all) salt products is because it was a public health solution to solve the substantial nationwide iodine deficiency prevalent during the 20th century. But it was a solution conceived in 1924, when the FDA thought this was the best way to get iodine into Americans. And it worked.

Unfortunately, sodium does indeed present adverse effects in some people. As a result, "get your iodine from salt" has evolved into "reduce your sodium intake." Everyone forgot about the iodine: They forgot about the large disfiguring goiters, the poor school performance in iodine-deficient schoolchildren, the mentally-impaired offspring of iodine-deficient mothers.

So don't confuse sodium with iodine. You may need less of the former, but more of the latter.

For more on this, see "Help keep your family goiter free."

"You can't reduce coronary plaque"

10. May 2009 William Davis (9)
"I told my cardiologst that I stumbled on a program called 'Track Your Plaque' that claims to be able to help reduce your coronary calcium score.

"My cardiologist said, 'That's impossible. You cannot reduce coronary plaque. I've never seen anyone reduce a heart scan score."

Who's right here?

The commenter is right; the cardiologist is wrong.

I would predict that the cardiologist is among the conventionally-thinking, "statins drugs are the only solution" group who follows his patients over the years to determine when a procedure is finally "needed." In fact, I know many of these cardiologists personally. The primary care physicians are completely in the dark, usually expressing an attitude of helplessness and submitting to the "wisdom" of their cardiology consultants.

Quantify and work to reduce the atherosclerotic plaque? No way! That's work, requires thinking, some sophisticated testing (like lipoprotein testing), even some new ideas like vitamin D. "They didn't teach that to me in medical school (back in 1980)!"

Welcome to the new age.

Atherosclerotic plaque is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, and 3) can be reduced.

We do it all the time. (Amy still holds our record: 63% reduction in plaque/heart scan score.)

Though I pooh-pooh the value of statin drug studies, there's even data from the conventional statin world documenting coronary plaque reversal. The ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor), 40 mg per day for one year, demonstrated 7% reduction of atherosclerotic plaque using intracoronary ultrasound.

I have NEVER seen a heart attack or appearance of heart symptoms (angina, unstable angina) in a person who has reversed coronary plaque (unless, of course, they pitched the whole effort and returned to bad habits--that has happened). Stick to the program and coronary risk, for all practical purposes, been eliminated.

A heart scan score is not a death sentence. It is simply a tool to empower your prevention program, a measuring stick to gauge plaque progression, stabilization, or regression. Don't accept anything less.

Lethal lipids

8. May 2009 William Davis (15)
There's a specific combination of lipids/lipoproteins that confers especially high risk for heart disease. That combination is:

Low HDL--generally less than 50 mg/dl

Small LDL--especially if 50% or more of total LDL

Lipoprotein(a)--an aggressive risk factor by itself


This combination is a virtual guarantee for heart disease, often at a young age. It's not clear whether each risk factor exerts its own brand of undesirable effect, or whether the combined presence of each cause some adverse interaction.

For instance, lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), by itself is the most aggressive risk factor known (that nobody's heard about--there's no blockbuster revenue-generating drug for it). Each Lp(a) molecule is a combination of an LDL cholesterol molecule with a specific genetically-determined protein, apoprotein(a). If the LDL component of Lp(a) is small, then the combination of Lp(a) with small LDL is somehow much worse, kind of like the two neighborhood kids who are naughty on their own, but really bad when they're together.

Interestingly, the evil trio responds as a whole to many of the same corrective treatments:

Niacin--increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and reduces Lp(a)

Elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars--Best for reducing small LDL; less potent for Lp(a) reduction.

High-fat intake--Like niacin, effective for all three.

High-dose fish oil--Higher doses of EPA + DHA north of 3000 mg per day also can positively affect all three, especially Lp(a).


If you have this combination, it ought to be taken very seriously. Don't let anybody tell you that it is uncorrectable--just because there may be no big revenue-generating drug to treat it on TV does not mean that there aren't effective treatments for it. In fact, some of our biggest successes in reducing heart scan scores have had this precise combination.

"Get regressive"

6. May 2009 William Davis (0)
This caught my eye:



Niaspan, prescription niacin, now sold by Abbott Laboratories, is now promoting its advantages in regressing coronary plaque:



In patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) and hypercholesetgerolemia, Niaspan (niacin), in combination with a bile acid-binding resin, is indicated to slow progression or promote regression of atherosclerotic disease.



And the new slogan: "Get regressive."



Interestingly, the new marketing campaign is based on relatively old data. They base this new claim on 3 studies:



1) Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (CLAS)--a 1987

CRP House of Cards

4. May 2009 William Davis (15)
Lew has coronary plaque with a heart scan score of 393. At age 53, that's in the 90th percentile (higher score than 90% of men in his age group).

On our search for causes of his coronary plaque, we identify low HDL of 41 mg/dl, high triglycerides of 202 mg/dl, small LDL (83% of total), calculated LDL of 133 mg/dl, and severe vitamin D deficiency with a starting blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 19 ng/ml.

His c-reactive protein: 4.1 mg/dl--above the cut-off of 2.0 mg/dl that the pharmaceutical industry is targeting as a mandate for statin therapy, particularly given the JUPITER data.

Lew instead eliminates wheat and other small LDL-provoking foods and, as a result, loses 28 lbs in 3 months; adds omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil; supplements vitamin D sufficient to increase his blood level to 70 ng/ml.

Along with dramatic correction of his starting abnormalities, his c-reactive protein: 0.4 mg/dl--no statin drug.

In my view, increased CRP is nothing more than a surrogate for the inflammatory phenomena that arise from high-carbohydrate diets, overweight, and small LDL. Correct those and CRP drops off a cliff. In fact, it is exceptionally rare for CRP to not drop to very low levels following this formula.

I believe that CRP is one more item on the list of reasons--the house of cards--the pharmaceutical industry is building to persuade us to take more and more statin drugs. LDL not low enough? Take more statin. Diabetic with low cholesterol? Take a statin. Inflammation? Take a statin.

Enough already.

At-home blood tests

2. May 2009 William Davis (6)
Our at-home blood tests are proving a hit.

So far, vitamin D is the number one most popular test, no surprise.

Second--to my surprise--is DHEA. I would have predicted it would have been thyroid testing.

Our male and female hormone panels are also proving popular.

I've personally been using the thyroid and vitamin D testing to monitor my levels. I increased my Armour thyroid based on a low free T3 value, while my vitamin D was perfect at 77 ng/ml on 8000 units vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day.

The process of performing the blood spots is straightforward. The finger pricks are virtually painless using the automatic spring-loaded finger stick devices:





The number of blots to make depends on how many tests you'd like. Just a vitamin D test requires 2 blots. If 6 or more tests are ordered at a time, then all 12 blots should be made. (Two spring-loaded lancets are provided in each kit.)





If you are interested in any of our at-home blood tests, go here.

Our own Heart Hawk has posted an editorial on about blood spot testing on Health Central:

Simple, affordable home blood testing is a real game-changer in the arena of informed, self-directed healthcare. For the first time broad access to home blood testing, on a scale similar to that enjoyed by persons who routinely test their blood sugar, is available to virtually everyone and it removes doctors as the gatekeepers of these tests. Even private insurance companies and Medicare are beginning to understand the potential for improving healthcare and decreasing costs and are slowly beginning to expand coverage of home blood testing much as they do for diabetics or persons taking anti-coagulants.

"Help keep your family goiter free"

1. May 2009 William Davis (10)
People ask, "If I need iodine, should I go back to iodized salt?"

First of all, how did this notion of iodized salt originate?

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was appointed head of the FBI, Marlon Brando and Doris Day were born, and Calvin Coolidge was elected President of the United States. Half of American households had a car, while 1 in 4 Americans were illiterate.



In the 1920s, cities were a fraction of their current size and a third of the U.S. population, or 36 million people, lived in small rural communities.

Goiters were also wildly prevalent in 1924. Up to a third of the population in some areas of the country, particularly the Midwest, suffered from goiters, thyroid glands that enlarged due to lack of iodine.

Goiters were not only unsightly, but sometimes grotesque, causing a visible bulge in the front of the neck. Occasionally, they would grow so big that it compressed adjacent structures, like the trachea, and would have to be surgically removed. Goiters were commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction, especially low thyoid or hypothyroidism, that resulted in low IQ's in schoolchildren, debilitation in adults. Women of childbearing age delivered retarded children.

So iodine deficiency in early 20th century America was a big problem. How to solve this enormous public health problem in a large nation without television, few radios, no internet, with a largely rural and often illiterate population?

Thus was iodized salt born, a simple, technologically available solution that could be implemented on a large scale nationwide at low cost. The FDA chose this route in 1924, figuring that it was the best way to ensure that most Americans could obtain sufficient iodine through liberal use of iodized salt. Public health officials urged Americans to use salt. Morton's salt label proudly bore the slogan "Help keep your family goiter free!"

It worked. Goiters largely became a thing of the past.

How about today? The American Heart Association recommends limiting salt, recently announcing that they would like to limit intake to 1500 mg per day. The American Medical Association has been lobbying the FDA to set lower salt limit guidelines. The FDA has been clamping down on food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of salt in processed foods.

Why limit salt? The concern is that there are segments of the population (not all) that are salt sensitive, particularly African Americans, people with certain genetic forms of high blood pressure, conditions that cause water retention, and any degree of heart or kidney failure. Salt in these peoplem, in fact, can be disastrous.
So adding iodine to salt was the solution to epidemic goiter. And it worked.

But salt is not a perfect solution, just one that served its purpose back in 1924. What we need is a 21st century solution.
You will find that in the various iodine supplements at your health food store. My favorite is kelp--inexpensive, available, and a form that mimics the way Japanese people obtain iodine (though by eating seaweed, rather than with tablets).


Image of kelp courtesy Wikipedia
Vitamin D: Deficiency vs optimum level

Vitamin D: Deficiency vs optimum level

19. December 2010 William Davis (20)
Dr. James Dowd of the Vitamin D Cure posted his insightful comments regarding the Institute of Medicine's inane evaluation of vitamin D.

Dr. Dowd hits a bullseye with this remark:

The IOM is focusing on deficiency when it should be focusing on optimal health values for vitamin D. The scientific community continues to argue about the lower limit of normal when we now have definitive pathologic data showing that an optimal vitamin D level is at or above 30 ng/mL. Moreover, if no credible toxicity has been reported for vitamin D levels below 200 ng/mL, why are we obsessing over whether our vitamin D level should be 20 ng/mL or 30 ng/mL?

Yes, indeed. Have no doubts: Vitamin D deficiency is among the greatest public health problems of our age; correction of vitamin D (using the human form of vitamin D, i.e., D3 or cholecalciferol, not the invertebrate or plant form, D2 or ergocalciferol) is among the most powerful health solutions.

I have seen everything from relief from winter "blues," to reversal of arthritis, to stopping the progression of aortic valve disease, to partial reversal of dementia by achieving 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of 50 ng/ml or greater. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.)

The IOM's definition of vitamin D adequacy rests on what level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reverses hyperparathyroidism (high PTH levels) and rickets. Surely there is more to health than that.

Dr. Dowd and vocal vitamin D advocate, Dr. John Cannell, continue to champion the vitamin D cause that, like many health issues, conradicts the "wisdom" of official organizations like the IOM.
Tags :

Comments (20) -

  • Anton

    12/19/2010 2:20:07 AM |

    Thanks for your great blog, and for your interest in Vitamin D.

    Along with doctors Dowd and Cannell, add Dr. Holick as another pioneer in Vitamin D. research.

    http://www.vitamindhealth.org/

  • Anonymous

    12/19/2010 4:58:25 AM |

    I bet natural vitamin d is far superior to oral supplementation.  I think vit D absorbtion is optimized by low carb, but you also need some sunlight added into the picture.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/19/2010 1:59:13 PM |

    Hi, Anon--

    Where I live, it's been around 10 degrees Fahrenheit for about two weeks straight. Probably too cold to lay out in a bathing suit.

    For many of us, supplementation is the only choice.

    Also, don't forget that the majority of people after age 40 have lost much of their ability to activate vit D in the skin.

  • kellgy

    12/19/2010 5:02:25 PM |

    I just added his book to my wish list and it will be my next read. I am beginning to wonder why don't we seek to reach serum vitamin D somewhere between 100-150 range. Has there been any research indicating any response to these levels? Even with all the recent research focusing on vitamin D, it would be nice to understand overall health responses at varying degrees of serum content from deficiency to toxicity. We need a wider perspective to draw from.

    BTW, an update: 110 pounds and counting . . . My BMI is about to fall into the normal range and my health has never been better!

    This is an unusual thought. Sitting in front of a very warm and soothing fire last night, I was wondering how my skin reacts to the radiation, aside from the warmth and relaxation benefits.

  • IggyDalrymple

    12/20/2010 3:07:51 AM |

    My level dropped 20 points when I reduced my intake from 10,000 iu/day to 5,000 /day.  I went back to 10,000 and now I'm at 63 ng/ml.  I'll stick with 10,000 iu unless I exceed 100 ng/ml.

  • Susanne

    12/20/2010 7:06:08 AM |

    I wonder if there is not a missing piece to the puzzle of vitamin D deficiency in relation to adequate iodine levels.  I have appended text from the website Iodine4health.  In it Dr. Vickery noticed a connection between the two:

    ”I have also noted an apparent connection between bringing sufficient iodine to a bromine plugged thyroid, and the vitamin D metabolism of the body. Although I am unaware of the exact mechanism, it seems clear that the calcitonin/parathyroid hormone/Vitamin D/calcium balance in the body changes as people on iodine loading programs often register as vitamin D deficient when they did not previously."

    I believe this to be my case.  I tested my vitamin D levels for years and they were optimal based on Dr. Mercola's recommendations and I supplemented with D in the form of cod liver oil rarely.  Then I started taking iodine and I had such a dramatic improvement in symptoms that I knew I had been iodine deficient perhaps my entire life.  After 2-3 years of iodine supplemention I am going to get my D levels tested soon.

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2010 12:10:49 PM |

    Susanne
    Please write the name of the test you underwent to find iodine deficient?Is it a routine blood test that nay primary care doc can order?Readers please chime in please

    Regards
    SMK

  • Pater_Fortunatos

    12/20/2010 1:02:01 PM |

    Published less than a month ago:

    Vitamin D deficiency in rheumatoid arthritis: prevalence, determinants and associations with disease activity and disability

    http://arthritis-research.com/content/12/6/R216

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2010 9:58:20 PM |

    "Probably too cold to lay out in a bathing suit."

    Did you try without?
    OK, couldn't resist.

  • Anonymous

    12/20/2010 10:21:05 PM |

    Just a quick question about D3 supplements. I know that dry tabs aren't ideal because they're hard for the body to absorb but what about capsulated powdered D3?

  • Anonymous

    12/21/2010 1:34:06 AM |

    Have an observation using a vitamin D light that I thought to mention.  I take vitamin D capsules and have been doing so for around 5 years.  This winter I decided that I would also use a vitamin D3 light pretty much each day in addition to taking the capsules.  I bought a light sold on Dr Cannell's sight.  I've noticed that sunlight and the artificial D3 light makes me feel warm through out the day, something D3 isn't able to do for me, at least.  And with this cold fall/winter going on right now, this 10 minutes of sunlight is a big plus!    

    Well, there might be a nice bonus from using the light.  I think I'm growing bigger, in a muscular way.  I do work out at a gym and have done so for over 1 years.  Just began the slow burn process last week.  But this muscle growth seems to have started around the time I made a conscious effort to use the indoor light or obtain some sunlight.  

    Anyway, no way to prove, and could be completely wrong about this.  Just something I've noticed as my shirts have grown tighter over the last couple months.  Weight has gone up also by a few pounds. I'm pleased.

  • Jessica

    12/22/2010 7:29:50 PM |

    SMK- the test for iodine that we order in our clinic (family practice) is an iodine loading 24 hour urine test.

    patients take 50 mg of iodoral then capture their urine for the next 24 hours to see how much is excreted.

    There is a 2 week prep, though, that helps ensure the test is accurate.

    Dr. Brownstein (?) has several books on the topic. I think he recommends the load testing method in his book, "Iodine, why we need it, why we can't live without it."

  • Chris Masterjohn

    12/23/2010 2:10:47 AM |

    I'll be posting my comments on the IOM report soon, although this sucker is 999 pages long and taking me a while to read.  I don't think it is at all true that it focuses on "deficiency" instead of "optimal levels."  I think it is quite clearly and very explicitly focused on optimal levels.  

    The IOM claims to not have found sufficient evidence to conclude that higher levels are optimal.  Now, I do believe that there is good enough evidence to act on the hypothesis that levels should be above 30 ng/mL, and my impression so far is that there is very little data supporting an argument for >50 ng/mL as some suggest.  That said, I won't be convinced that the IOM is *wrong* that definitive evidence for greater than 20 ng/mL is lacking until I finish reading the report and look at some of the primary references.

    I do think it's important, however, to exercise the freedom to act on hypotheses.  If we needed definitive evidence for everyone we do, our familial relations and whole lives would fall apart.  Still, I think the IOM had a responsibility to assess the quality of the evidence and only solidify what is definitive into recommendations, as long as those recommendations don't preclude the freedom to use higher levels.

    In any case, hopefully I can finish this bad boy in the next week and blog about it.

    Chris

  • Anonymous

    12/24/2010 3:43:54 AM |

    Isn't anyone concerned about all those studies summarized in the IOM report showing increased mortality at the highest D levels? 50 ng/ml is the highest level that I can justify targeting.

  • Lacey

    12/24/2010 3:17:52 PM |

    Off topic, but...I wish Paleo bloggers were better at spotting and stopping spam comments.

    Blogger Brooklyn said...Awesome Blog!!! blah blah blah blah

    Funny, Brooklyn had the exact same words to say over on Stephan Guyanet's blog:  http://tinyurl.com/2v25wc3

    His wonderful blog that he links back to says, among other things, "In the meantime, they recommend that all people, with or without diabetes, should have a healthy balanced diet, low in fat, salt and sugar with plenty of fruit and vegetables." It's also chock full of plagiarized text.

    Sincere paleo fan or linkspammer?  You be the judge.

  • Travis Culp

    12/25/2010 4:38:25 AM |

    Has anyone tested vitamin D levels in indigenous people? I try to dose about 30 minutes a day of sun during solar noon without a shirt on during the summer and 5000 IU a day for the rest of the year. No idea what my level would be though.

  • Peter

    12/25/2010 12:45:12 PM |

    I'm more concerned about official organizations going beyond the evidence (eat margarine! eat carbs! avoid saturated fat!) than  being over-cautious when there's not a lot of reliable research.

  • Anonymous

    1/4/2011 4:26:38 AM |

    One more comment on my apparently deleted comment - there's a possibiliy I never typed in the word verification code, but I believe I did actually post the comment. Sorry, if I did falsely accuse.

  • Brad Fallon

    3/5/2011 6:08:50 PM |

    Vitamin D Deficiency, what is the best natural source apart from sunshine to help keep the levels up?

  • Anonymous

    3/21/2011 4:15:01 PM |

    I just found my new vitamin store. The prices are the lowest I could find. They gave me a free gift of $5.00 with no minimum purchase and I got free shipping! The code I used at checkout is WIR500. Maybe it will work for you too?

Add comment

Loading